nauseus

Less vetoes = less control. Any state vetoing a treaty might risk its EU membership. I've already explained that what might be ok for the majority might not be so for the minority.

As far as I remember hearings were dropped, declined, dismissed or similar and a few that got through at state level were quickly squashed by the Supreme Court and never fully heard either. After that lot there's little point in trying again, is there?

Who mentioned lying?

Oh I agree with the self-sufficiency bit. But I don't agree with the rebate imbalances .

Don't expect me to remember when and where you post your links. And your fact check lot even admit they can't check some of the stuff they are talking about:

Four years to check out and we still have to pay the Klingons! Great.

Explain a bit please.

Yes, "ever closer union". Before the UK joined in 1973, the EEC - European Economic Community - was generally called The Common Market, indicating it to be an economic association, and this is how most UK politicians tried to sell it. The problem is that this "intended scope" was not limited within the treaty, which was not easily accessible by the public for reading and evaluation. The treaty certainly wasn't limited to trade and economics either! By 2016 there were plenty signs that the aim of a single European state was indeed real and that's a big reason why there was a leave vote.

The number and power of vetoes has been systematically reduced over time, while QMV has become more widespread. Decisions of high importance can now be made that would favour a majority of EU countries but which might be unacceptable to the minority. This trend was liable to continue and it was one of the big reasons to leave.

The UK was second highest net contributor for many years because of the preset and enormous farming rebates afforded to the French since the start.

Try Hotel California then.

Not sure where that very low number comes from.

I'm sure.

It is.

They didn't even look at the evidence.

I see your point but with the Orcs lobbing in missiles and killing thousands of civilians I think terrorism could be fairly used as one if the words to describe that.

Yes, that's why I used the word generally.

Amazing eh? The Klingon Empire.

And you were giving me a lesson in arithmetic? The EU is not all about economics - this was not the main driver of the leave vote in the UK - try and get used to that.

Why pointless? Germany and the EU will slip like everywhere else. And you can use that Vaseline for your own entry.

There's thanks for ya.

What is simple is your notion that the whole of Ukraine has been taken and that $400M would make a difference to anything.

Annexing Ukraine? Give it a rest mate.

They will support Ukraine aid. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/19/politics/ukraine-aid-government-funding-bill/index.html

-No one tried an infrastructure for years. Given the rate of inflation, yes, very impressive I suppose. -He got prescription drug price reductions passed - well done. -Joe was not the the only one who pushed for aid to Ukraine. That didn't take long to pass. -Biden certainly did not rebuild NATO - 45 woke it up with some home truths. -Biden inherited UE of 6.8% after Covid pushed it there. -Then, less than halfway through - enter Trump - again. -What a surprise. -But -Since Biden took office the numbers of illegal migrants and drugs are the highest in decades, with no action yet. -Biden’s shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster and this weakness may have encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine. -The Biden administration pushed the green agenda and withdrew support for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, while renewable energy sources are still far from ready to service global energy requirements. Now all conventional fuel is expensive and the prime driver of inflation. -Biden refuses to acknowledge that radical policies embraced by his Democratic Party are largely to blame for high violent crime rates in cities that are now having to refund their police, after so much damage has been done.